MANISANA, J. :- These four (4) appeals, namely, FA Nos. 6(SH) 90, 7(SH) 90, 8(SH)90 and 9(SH)90 are disposed of by this common judgment as the question of facts and law raised in these appeals are similar.

2. Facts. - The plaintiff in each of the suits filed the suits against the State of Meghalaya and three of its officers. In all the suits the two-months prior notice under Section 80(1), CPC was required. But, the suits were filed before the expiry of two (2) months. Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suits as not maintainable relying on a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Bihary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1043. Hence these appeals.

3. The appellant in each of the appeals has filed application praying that the appeals may be disposed of treating the order of dismissal as an order rejecting the plaint.

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the question which arises for consideration is whether the plaint is to be returned or rejected, or the suit is to be dismissed.

5. Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 80, CPC, save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), no suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respec